User talk:Lucia Black/Archive 2

GITS Albums

Hey bread Nija, you still need help on the GITS article? If so post the link here please. --Necrojesta (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

removal of templates

Just to let you know, per bold revert discuss, if a template you placed on an article is reverted, it's not appropriate to reinstate it. The appropriate thing to do is to go to the article's talk page and explain why you feel it's necessary. --Malkinann (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly enough over the template to revert someone else's revert, then you should feel strongly enough to talk about it on the discussion page. Explaining it first before looking for a third party to vindicate your views is the proper process. I can understand that you may not wish to do so, though, given that you're trying to be a bit more exopedian - if that's the case, take your reverts on the chin, don't let it worry you. Let it go, instead. Getting The Last Word is not the best idea - it's possible that you may end up beating a dead horse - ick!  ;) Please take care. :) --Malkinann (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about 'having the points in your favour', Wikipedia is collaborative, even with people who have widely divergent points of view to your own. That's why I've been urging you to develop your exopedian side - so that we can all collaborate on the articles rather than discuss proposed changes incessantly on the talk pages. That way, people will be more receptive to your ideas when you propose changes in the article, as they've worked alongside with you. Do you get what I mean? --Malkinann (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested to you a number of things that you can do to ameliorate the situation, and you seem to be largely ignoring my suggestions, aside from getting adopted. This makes me sad. Instead, you seem to be continuing the behaviour that upsets people - starting up many discussions but not editing the actual articles, labelling people as a 'bunch of biased fans' and ignoring consensus. Everyone is human, everyone has bias. There's no escaping that. If you become more exopedian in your edits, people will see you more as a fellow worker and respond to your discussions better. I hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, you'll have to be more specific. --Malkinann (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was AFK for a few days in the leadup to Christmas - you probably just caught me at a bad time. By the time I found your message, it was already too late. I am not Folken's keeper or your keeper, I have a life of my own. --Malkinann (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you leave discussing things for a time, and find something to do that's a bit more exopedian - like looking up in your Angelic Days books for development information at the back, or reading something in the further reading sections around the Evangelion articles (or any other article in Wikipedia) and add it into that article as a source. Discussing improvements to the article does not actually entail improving an article, and sometimes gets in the way of improving articles by inducing editor fatigue. Can you imagine if we had to previously discuss every single edit we make? No-one would ever get anything done. --Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Character design is part of the development/production of a manga series, as it is the author's interpretations of these characters. It would be really helpful if you added this information to the Angelic Days page. :) I would encourage you to become even more exopedian - branching out to other areas of Wikipedia may help you to regain your confidence, but if you were to simply add sourced information to Evangelion pages, that's something that's uncontroversial and usually considered a good thing by all. Everyone gets reverted on occasion, it's not something to be ashamed of. :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at The Arbiter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at The Arbiter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent User

That's the point.

I'm a recent user and can't edit the page.

Because it, i ask you to do this, sorry =( --Ekans La Cobra (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I've fixed up your AFD on the Eureka 7 game - please read WP:AFDHOWTO for advice as to how to list an AFD properly. (I messed up my first AFD too, so don't feel alone in this.) If you don't follow the procedure on the AFD page, people won't know the article is up for discussion, and so the article probably won't be deleted. Hope this helps. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned!

You've got a warning. Do it again and you'll be reported. - Zhang He (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Terra (group)

I am working with admin Lar on the BLPs that are within the scope of Bemani music video games and already knew about the AfD for Terra (group). Thanks for letting me know though.  æronphonehome  17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They're going down so fast very few are even noticing. I understand the situation and believe the intent of these deletions is noble but the actual execution is anywhere from sloppy to surreptitious.  æronphonehome  17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Bread Ninja, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Bread Ninja/Music of Ghost in the Shell. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: L'Arc-en-Ciel

Don't make threats to start edit wars on articles. The matter was discussed and opposed during the Request for Move. Get over it, the article won't be moved against consensus. oncamera^(t) 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Angelic Days

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for looking for your books. :) --Malkinann (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You realise it takes two to edit war, right?

I don't know or care who's right here; talk it out. You're both in the wrong. HalfShadow 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of 'don't know or care' did you fail to understand? Hash it out on the talk page or I'll report you both to AN/I. HalfShadow 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The two of you together are causing a disruption. You'll find I do care about that. HalfShadow 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex: 2nd GiG

Hi Bread Ninja

As far as the work required on 2nd GIG goes, what it needs above all else is a summary. As it stands, there is a discussion of the setting of the story but no actual word of what the story is. A plot summary would redress this imbalance. GitS:SAC is essentially about the Laughing Man case: what is 2nd GIG about?

Thanks BlackMarlin (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess! soundtracks

hi, i was just wondering if you could help out make the article into tracklist format. the format it is in now, is odd and hard to understand. also additional reference of where you found these tracklist is good too.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, I used the sources pointed out in the references section as well as the cds themselves (for timings mostly). List is probably incomplete as there had been so many cd releases. -- Cat ^chi? 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: .hack//Roots references

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
Message added allen四names 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

References in plot summaries

Hello, Bread Ninja. (Great username, by the way!) Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Open Boat/archive1, but I wanted to correct your misconception regarding refs in plot summaries; citations are not necessary unless the summary includes critical opinion, interpretation, direct quotes, or anything similarly questionable. Per WP:PLOTSUM—and as can be seen in various Featured Articles dedicated to works of fiction (To Kill a Mockingbird, Mary: A Fiction, etc.)—if a plot summary is solely a plot summary, the reference is obviously the work itself, and no other citation is needed. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, . WP:CITE states that material "challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations" must be cited. The only citation currently in the plot summary refers to a direct quote; because the rest of the section is a basic overview of the action in the short story, per guidelines there is no need for additional outside sources. The source is the work itself. Is there something in the summary you find to be contentious? María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then you and I/the citation guidelines/the GA and FA-criteria will just have to agree to disagree. ;) María (habla conmigo) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended, although it was intended to convey a sense of finality. On a similar note, I'm not sure you quite understand the purpose of a peer review, or what exactly it is I'm looking for in way of constructive criticism -- especially in regards to the FA-criteria. Perhaps you just aren't as familiar with academic articles; I see on your talk page that you're into video games, which is great, but they're not exactly on the same page as, say, "The Open Boat". I appreciate your interest, but I don't see how the comments you've made (both in-actionable and incorrect) can possibly improve the article. María (habla conmigo) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my doubts about your peer review experience; I wrote the article in its entirety, submitted it for PR, and tend to take it to FAC -- therefore I am "in charge", as you say. I suggest you become familiar with the process before you make further suggestions. Goodbye. María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly civil, thank you. Although I obviously don't have control of what comments are submitted to the PR, or FAC for that matter, I have the right as the major contributor of the article to point out when someone's suggestions are not actionable, or when their comments go against widely accepted style guidelines, just as I have in regards to your input. Any other editor in the know would have done exactly the same. If you would rather editors ignore your suggestions, for fear that they in some way point out when you are mistaken, perhaps you should simply not comment. María (habla conmigo) 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought they were your "brother"'s comments? Either way, I didn't remove them, I moved them to the PR's talk page. Let it rest. María (habla conmigo) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Roxas (Kingdom Hearts)

You're right, the article deserves more than Start-class. Typically, you can request a reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. A Good Article rating would have to go through the WP:GAN process.

I'm not sure if Tintor plans to go for GA or not. If so, then he may not care about a reassessment right now. I know I don't when I prep C-class or lower articles for GA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

AFD

WP:AFDHOWTO will tell you everything you need to know about starting an AFD. Please read it and have a go - Collectonian or an administrator can help you fix up the AFD listing if there's any problems. --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NGE Games

Sorry, I'm not interested in anything until July. Until then, I would suggest you try to improve the articles as they are and ask the video games project for help. --Malkinann (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: MOS-AM

The part of WP:MOS-AM that I was talking about is in the section "Article names and disambiguation". It says:

"In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:

1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or
2. The article becomes too large." Calathan (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My issue with this guideline is that I think in some cases multiple works are left merged together when there are actually enough sources to write separate, non-redundant articles on the different works. Though it says the articles can be split when the one article becomes too large, in my opinion the articles don't ever become too large becaue people are discouraged from writing more about one part of a franchise when it is merged into a small section on another part of a franchise. While the guideline should still encourage only having one article when there isn't enough to write about to support multiple articles, I think it should also encourage having multiple articles when there is enough information to support them. The current version only allows for multiple articles once two articles worth of content are present in the current article, but I think it should instead allow for two articles once it is clear that the sources support two articles worth of content, even if all that content hasn't been written into Wikipedia yet. The reason for this is that I think splitting articles will encourage people to expand them, while leaving them together will encourage people never to do the work that should be done on them. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting is not the way Wikipedia normally works or is intended to work. Normally, someone will create a new article as a stub, perhaps just one or two sentances. If the subject is notable, then the article will be kept. Over time, many people will see the article and add to it, until eventually it grows to a large size. Articles aren't created full formed, with all sections completed and well sourced. Instead they are allowed to exist if sources can be found (even if those sources aren't cited in the article yet), and gradually improved upon until they become full-length, well cited article. However, I think that the overmerging of articles by Wikiproject Anime and Manga interferes with this process, and results in some articles never being written. For the example I was using of Dragon Ball GT, if you look at the Dragon Ball article, you will see that it has just one sentance of production information, one sentance of plot summary (though there are individual episodes summaries in the episode list), and half a paragraph of reception for Dragon Ball GT. I think the sources could easily support two paragraphs for each of production, plot summary, and reception, yet they never get written because it would seem out of place to write that much about Dragon Ball GT in an article that mainly focuses on the rest of the Dragon Ball franchise. I'm sure there are other examples of this happening, but Dragon Ball GT is just the one I'm most aware of. However, I'm not suggesting that this happens in all cases or even in most cases, and there are certainly cases where it would probably be better to have a single article even if enough could be written on multiple versions of a work. For example, the article on Fullmetal alchemist seems to cover both the manga and anime sufficenently, and having the different versions together in a single artilce allows for better coverage of how they differ from each other. I'm not suggesting that articles just be spilt because there are enough reviews of the manga and the anime that each could pass the notability guidelines separately. Instead I'm saying that it seems to me that adaptations and spinoffs get neglected because of being merged into an article on another part of the franchise. Perhaps an alternative to amending WP:MOS-AM to suggest articles be split more often would be to instead have it make clear that adaptations and spinoffs should be covered to the full degree that sources allow, rather than just being briefly mentioned because they are not the original work. Calathan (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are just wrong about articles needing to be long to be kept. Articles are kept based on the sources found that could allow the article to exist, not on what is currently in the article. Calathan (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Friends for Sale

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alexius08 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi BN, there's been a complaint from Donald Duck that you're posting on his talk page after he asked you not to. While there's no ownership of user talk pages, there's nevertheless a presumption in favour of the user being allowed to determine who is welcome there (within reason). If he removes your post, it means he has seen it, so there's no need to post it again. And if he asks you to stop, it's best to do it. If problems continue, perhaps you could ask others for input, rather than dealing with it yourself. I'm writing this with no knowledge of the background, by the way, so this request shouldn't be interpreted as an opinion of who's right or wrong about the specific issue. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Bento00's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GITS album page

I appreciate you letting me know. Are all the albums being consolidated into a list article for notability reasons? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If Megatech Body doesn't fit the notability guidelines as a standalone article, I don't mind a merge. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I just felt that it should of been better discussed before making drastic changes. The merged new article is missing a lot of information such as track listings, cd staffs, and album art. I feel that perhaps we can work to expand the existing album pages and make them better suit the notability guidelines. I've been doing what I can to contribute. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, I understand. It was just that the last time I viewed the page it was as it was and then the next time I viewed it, they were all merged and I didn't know what was going on. The pages have been really helpful to me and I used them to find out information when I was listening to the music. The main reason I would go back to the page would be to obtain the album art too. It was probably my favorite thing about the article. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Talk:Super Street Fighter IV.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--uKER (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Major Kusangi

I'm upset to see that you've axed what I feel to be an important part of the article, and also that you could not find a place to put File:Major Kusangi.jpg. Since I have no desire to argue with the people who insist on eliminating our fiction-based articles one section at a time, I will merely note that in the future I would like to be informed of the removal of any fair use images like the one cited above that were uploaded by me. I would rather delete said images before the bots on site leave that message about such images being nominated for deletion, as such automated messages depress me immensely. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I do want to argue with you. All I am saying here is that notifying the uploader of your decision to remove a fair use image would be nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I know about the guidelines (both the old ones and the new ones), but my request is not covered by them. That is why I left you this message in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Joe Chill's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback from Allen4names

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion

Re: Collapsed track listing now implemented. Is this what you after? Memphisto (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Neon genesis character image discussion

I already gave my opinion about it. Better comment it in the project.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Japan Expo

Hi,

Just to drop you this link. The French version of Pandara Hearts was launched during the French Japan Expo and its French published did it great. Unfortunately i'm not among the very very lucky few who got the chance to meet the mangaka during the event. --KrebMarkt 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep.

I know we've had our ups and downs, but I wanted to thank you for agreeing with me about the colon. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DJ Max

Fixing double redirects, which is what I believe you were talking about, is necessary. Even though there are bots that will find them eventually and fix them it's just good form to make sure you forwards any existing redirects to the new page name once you've moved a page.  æronphonehome  17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Media

I'm going to be completely honest with you. Whenever you say anything, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't understand your logic or thought processes at all. Saying "related media" means exactly what it says: media that is related. It should specifically disallow "other media that isn't directly related" implicitly. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is minute and not worth debating at length. "Related media" is what most video game featured articles have so that's what we'll go with. The scope of the section is ultimately decided by its actual contents, not the title of the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Long delayed hi

Hello Bread Ninja. My editing had almost ceased over the last few weeks/months and I apologize for the long time it has taken me to get back to you. I read the discussion you related on my talk page and was wondering how everything was going. Not just with that, but how you are generally doing with other editing and such. Your talk page looks pretty active, so it appears obvious you've been in the trenches :) Calmer Waters 08:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)

I think the article still belongs to Portal:Anime and Manga. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank You, Bread Ninja, for caring about me and welcoming me to Wikipedia. Unfortunately I've been here for quite a while now, perhaps even longer than yourself, and I am already well aware of the rules of Wikipedia. I wasn't, however, aware that deleting large portions of text and images from articles without discussing it first was part of the "rules." If anything, I think it is best to edit information so it better suits Wikipedia's standards instead of deleting information that could be considered valuable to others. I can see that obviously our editing styles differ and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding or hostility between us. As with everybody, I always try to assume good faith and see the best in every one. WP:Faith
I hope that his clears or settles anything between us and that we can remain friendly and positive towards each other. I wish to be nothing but your friend. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I understand regarding the Tachikoma page, that doesn't really bother me.
But with main articles and the soundtrack page, if we can't have duplicate information, why do we even have a soundtrack page? Wouldn't it be easier for the reader if the information was right there on each page. And there are people such as myself that think images are an important addition to Wikipedia and find them in articles to be helpful. And also, when you deleted the soundtrack sections from the main articles, you didn't provide a link to the soundtrack page, which was your reason for deleting them in the first place. And regarding deleting images, I feel that it should be discussed first before permanently deleting them from Wikipedia when other people went through the trouble of uploading them. If anything, I feel that they should be removed from the page, and not the actual file deleted. The image files could be useful to others or be used on other pages. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We're obviously not getting anywhere with this.
"i don't find images helpful when it comes to soundtracks. its really not necessary to have an image of a album cover" That is your personal opinion. Just because you don't think it's helpful doesn't mean others don't as well. I assume that other people find it helpful because almost every soundtrack page I visit has a picture of the album cover on it.
What I was trying to say was, if we didn't have a main soundtrack page, there would be no reason to delete the smaller sections on the original articles. I don't think anyone was complaining about them being on the original articles. But if you insist on keeping the main soundtrack page, perhaps we could have a small summary on the original page and then have a link to the main article which will feature more information. For example:Ghost_in_the_Shell_SAC#Music NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. I think it's fine the way it is. We don't need to have all the mini albums and singles. Just one image of the main album. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that would be best.
NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin

Nope. It appears it was released only like the one from List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters. Even the Argentinian release had the cover in such format.Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt it since we are supposed to show the first and original covers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock Shooter

Thanks for the help! Much appreciated! :) Fox816 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"ultimatum" vs "proposal"

Here is what the dictionary says;

Proposal:

proposal |prəˈpōzəl| noun 1 a plan or suggestion, esp. a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others : a set of proposals for a major new high-speed rail link.

Ultimatum:

ultimatum |ˌəltəˈmātəm; -ˈmät-| noun ( pl. -matums or -mata |-ˈmātə; -ˈmätə|) a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations : the UN Security Council ultimatum demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait | a “Marry me or else” ultimatum.

Since there was no room for discussion or argument or negotiation in what Vicious said to Julia, that makes it an ultimatum. That was the best word to begin with, it should stay that way.

Someone who is not a native speaker of English won't have much trouble with translating the meaning, and pretty much all native English speakers understand the difference. If they don't, there are dictionaries. :) Thanks! --MrsSpooky 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

Hi there. the article you referenced was Don't create articles on common words or phrases. that's not what's happening here. We're not creating an article, we're discussing the use of a word WITHIN an article. :) "Ultimatum" is almost as common a word as proposal - at least everyone knows the difference. There are just more proposals going around than ultimatums unless you are talking about world politics. :D

MrsSpooky 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I thought wikipedia was striving for accuracy. "Ultimatum" is MUCH more accurate than "proposal." I don't think they're even in the same ballpark, but if you think too much precision of meaning is going to be a problem for readers, then by all means change it back. I'll leave it for someone else to correct it. And I'm clicking the "signature and timestamp" icon. Don't know what wikipedia is doing with it. --MrsSpooky 02:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

One final thought. Vicious and Julia are talking:

"Are you going to kill him?" "No you are. Either he dies or you both die." <--does that sound like a proposal to you? --MrsSpooky 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

'Proposal' is completely wrong (and anyone who has seen the session in question will know that). Anyone who hasn't seen it will think it was like "I think you should kill Spike or I'll kill you both, what do you think, any ideas?" It's completely wrong. It was an ultimatum. But, he made the demand, maybe that sentence can be rewritten so that it's correct and not have to have edit wars over it.--MrsSpooky 02:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

LOOK

It's not in the damned template. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Are you blind? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bakuman

Good day, Bread Ninja, in response to your notice on my talk page, I believe the details of the first chapter itself wthin Bakuman can and would preferably be summarized within a paragraph as opposed to its two. The overall plot (as in how the story makes development and why) should be covered within the next few sentences, or if need be another paragraph. But the Bakuman story in particular can truly be explained in just one, and that is why I called the Plot summary "too lengthy," which I still support. Would you agree with these points? Spindori (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I have not read many similar articles, but those are to be addressed separately. As for Bakuman。, I have read only the first seven chapters and cannot say for myself how the plot goes. Moving passed that, I have read the first chapter and I know it can be summarized in one paragraph. I'll focus my attention on only that much for now. Spindori (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that reading just one chapter means I do not know whether or not that chapter can be further summarized? It would be more like saying, "This much happens in the first 10 minutes," and that I leave writing the rest of the movie to those who have seen it. I think you misunderstand me. Spindori (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Valentine

Please see the ongoing discussion in Talk:Cloud Strife and read the actual article. It is not a comparison, it is a fantasy casting for a movie which is not even taking place, which violates the WP:CRYSTAL policy. And as other users point out in the talk above, it violates neutrality, WP:UNDUE and trivia. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Reason

I only agreed with PresN about going for the first (and thus with all). Also, it's kind of obvious that I did not mean that, considering I put it next PresN's comment. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing I put in the talk page about the column.Tintor2 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first, but just added my reason.Tintor2 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NGE

I think that the quotes in the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) article are in general, a good thing, as long as it doesn't fall into copyright violation of the original source. The 'so sick' comment, in particular, could not be made any more succinct than it is. Perhaps it would be useful to have a peer review on the article, as the last peer review was in 2007, IIRC? Or even getting the article to B-class would be an achievement - there are 750 C-class anime articles, but less than 200 B-class. WP:AFDHOWTO should explain everything you need to know about AFDing an article, but it would be a very good idea if WP:BEFORE were followed first, or if you were to contact your adopter and ask for their advice. --Malkinann (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that quotes are the same as images - having a read through the non-free content policy might help you here. The quotes do not copy the whole of the sources, only the portion that is needed to back up the claim in the article, and the majority of the quotes are in the references section - outside of the 'flow' of the article. I've started up a merge discussion for the timeline article and asked Gwern, who originally proposed it in WP:EVA, to comment. --Malkinann (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the merge discussion. :) I'm not too fussed on the article, either - Evangelion is not Doctor Who! Perhaps you could start a discussion on an Evangelion talk page and list the quotes that you find problematic and why? Quoting the relevant point is especially important for long sources or questionable claims, as it helps people find what was originally said. You could always start a peer review to find out what other people think of the article in general. --Malkinann (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. I've left Gwern a message on his talk page, and since then Gwern has edited, but has not replied. :( Perhaps seeking a wider consensus is called for. --Malkinann (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm drafting a plea for more eyeballs to the wider wikiproject now. :) --Malkinann (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hope this is fair to all involved. --Malkinann (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel it's a good idea to start up another discussion before the first one has been resolved. Please get in contact with your adopter about this. --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. You could also do stuff that doesn't require discussion, such as copyediting, or adding new information from sources. :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple copyediting or adding information from a reliable source should not require prior discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum - stick close to the editing policy, be bold, and you should do just fine.  :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that if Bread Ninja really cared about improving articles, and not scoring quick edits by cutting down stuff, I have already pointed to RSs (online even!) which reference tons of material in our Eva articles, and much we have omitted besides. (I haven't used them yet precisely because there's so much in them.) And she has not evinced the slightest shred of interest in using them. --Gwern (contribs) 01:19 21 November 2010 (GMT)

That's not the problem, either way i'm looking for third party sources. Most of what you bring up is directly from the main source. Either way, back to the main topic of this section. I say no to block quotes. they are disruptive and don't get directly to the point. The flow of it is unencclopedic and much difficult to read. So yes i do care about the articles, but adding in comes after trimming.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's rich to hear you talk about flow or difficult to read. Very droll.

Now, as far as 'third party sources' - complete red herring. Who better than Gainax to confirm that an allusion is an allusion and not an illusion? They are the ultimate reference for that sort of material. Anyone else is merely guessing, regardless of who publishes their speculation. --Gwern (contribs) 01:19 21 November 2010 (GMT)

Winners

Okay thanks for starting a discussion and not just delete the winners, cuz the winners have been posted up there for almost 2 years already and no one seemed to remove them, so I thought that you can't just remove them like that without letting people know, and if they still agree with you 24.205.28.18 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template

Seems to be working for me; I put in {{Mobile Suit Gundam|MS=MSZG}} and I get the template with the first group as Zeta Gundam-specific. Same thing for {{Universal Century|MS=MSZG}}. --PresN 16:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Android Kikaider series

Sorry, but I didn't make much progress with those articles so I don't what resources are good. If your Japanese is up to par, you can try doing google searches of some of the reliable Japanese websites like newspapers and media sites. Sorry that doesn't help much, but I'm not sure where else to check. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

GAR?

Have you ever considered participating at WP:GAR? It's a good way to learn what makes an article GA-quality, and there's always a variety of articles to review. I found that having some experience there helped my confidence when I went to submit my first GA. --Malkinann (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment is the other side of GA, where older articles that possibly don't meet the criteria are reviewed by some people to see if they need delisting. With WP:GAN, more GAs are listed, and with WP:GAR, unsatisfactory GAs are delisted. GAR is always crying out for help, and it's less involved than nominating an article or reviewing someone else's nomination. GAR is a group environment that can show you what a lot of people think is GA-worthy/GA-unworthy. At GAR, you would be pointing out the problems in the article according to the GA criteria, and possibly helping to fix them if you want. I've always tried to make an article "GAR-proof" before nominating it - it makes for an easy initial review.  :) --Malkinann (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Seiyū v. voice actor

Anime and manga are fairly common terms in North America, seiyū is not. Anime, while originally meaning Japanese animation, has taken on its own meaning of Japanese-style animation, though this isn't entirely accurate either. Similarly with manga. There even exist western anime and manga. Not so with seiyū. Seiyū simply means Japanese voice actor, that's all. There are some quirks to voice acting in Japan not found elsewhere, but the terms are essentially synonymous. There is no relevant information lost by referring to Japanese voice actors as such, especially with such phrases as "… performed by various seiyū - or voice actors - from the anime series …". How is the use of a Japanese word at all clarifying? There was still the link to voice acting in Japan for anyone interested.

I was also taking a lead from the discussion here. I think the key point is that anime articles on Wikipedia are still intended for all Wikipedia readers, not just the anime subculture. – mpdimitroff (talk · contribs) 06:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I don't agree, this is probably a fight too big for me to win, so I'll leave it as is. – mpdimitroff (talk · contribs) 06:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Monster (manga)

Hey Bread Ninja. I see you've removed a lot of content from the article. Don't you feel some of it should have been kept for future reference in the "Talk" page? While there is trivia among these, someone might find it useful at some point. If you're adamant about simply getting rid of it, could you please point towards a Help page that recommend this line of conduct? That would help me understand certain editing policies I'm unfamiliar with (because there are just too many of them!). Thanks.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dissidia 012

What happened to the page? There used to be a character chart like the one on the Dissidia: Final Fantasy page, but now it's gone. Worse, there's unsourced material, like Vaan's inclusion, that has yet to be officially - if at all - confirmed. The page difinitely needs reworking, and I'd do it, but I don't know where to start. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit - Vaan has been confirmed for the game in a Japanese gaming magazine. I found a link to it of the Final Fantasy Wiki. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Utsuro no Hako to...

Hello ! I left a message on the ‎AfD page, but my request for help in finding sources at Wp:Anime failed, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source even in japanese, and no one seems to know the books.

I agree with you that the article would be acceptable with enough sources, but that could be said of all articles. The real question is whether there is any source, and thus whether the subject is notable or not. It seems obvious now that the subject isn't notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. If it can't be helped, then there is no choice. But for something like this article it just appears to be more difficult to do considering it's a novel relating to anime and manga but not exactly within the criteria. SO finding a regular reliable source is nearly impossible to find unless we start hunting for these specific sources to see if they have any coverage on this topic. but at the moment it has no sources. it has to be deleted then so be it. I saved the information on a special page, in case i find an sources after it gets deleted.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, maybe you could modify your comment on the AfD, it still says "keep", and since it's the only comment for now, the user who will close the AfD might think that's still your opinion and will keep it ^^
You did well to save the text. Maybe someday, a US publisher will pick it up ! After all, it's a very recent work. But, you now, reliable sources like ANN often review things that are not yet published outside of Japan, but are popular enough there, that it's not yet the case for Uturo seems like another nail in its coffin, unfortunately.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but you changed your comment to "keep" ? I don't really understand, i thought you agreed with me...?Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm half asleep. and amking big edits on cyborg 009. Sorry. I"ll go fix it.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg 009

I'll try to do my best to help out with the article. There's been a recent revival of interest in the series, so I'm more than happy to help with editing. When I have some time later, I'll update the article a bit more. Bokan

"be Human" / Music of Ghost in the Shell

Concerning the TYPE in the infobox for the be Human release at Music of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, there is an issue with using "mini album" because that is not a TYPE, but something within "Other" which is a type. See this: Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. For that field in the infobox, there should be one of the categories listed in that page, which could be Other, or maybe Soundtrack or EP or even Compilation as I thought at first. But in any case, there is a problem with "mini album" because it's not a TYPE value in itself, but something that falls within Other and can therefore be discussed in the text (outside of the infobox). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

it is a type, it falls under "other". any new type, would automatically go under "other" but it allows you to input the given name of the new type. a compliation wouldn't wokr if it never releasedb before, and this is almost a soundtrack but not exactly.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then you tell me why the article shows up in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes when you use "mini-album". With the article in that report, people will be removing "mini album" again and again. I was just the first to notice. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to EP for now. i'm currently working on adding a Mini-album as a new type. But the discussion is going lazily.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

.hack (video game series)

I have switched the boxart back to the logo. Your argument about the cast is not a solid one- there would not be justification for a non-free cast image, and so we can't use that as a justification for a non-free image in the lead instead of a free one. As far as I can see, the logo has three major advantages. First and formost, it is freely licensed, and free media should always be preferred. Secondly, unlike the single box art, it represents the entire series. Thirdly, it is consistent with other series articles. To draw a comparison, using that non-free box art in the lead instead of the free logo is like using a non-free publicity photo of a member of a band in the article about the band as a whole, instead of using a free logo used by the band; that idea is ludicrous, and there's no real difference between the two. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, whether you like it or not, our non-free content criteria do have consensus, and they are quite clear that if we have a free image that serves the same purpose, it should be used. The lead image is meant to represent the series as a whole- the series's logo and the box art of one of the games in the series both serve to do that; when one of them is free, that should be favoured by default. Again, I ask you how the cover of one of the games in the series can accurately represent the entire series, and, again, I point you to the example of Age of Empires, which is an excellent article (and is already featured). Would you propose replacing the lead image there? If not, what is the difference? J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The FAC is not the appropriate place for this discussion, the article talk page is. I have opened a discussion there. In any case, while there is a dispute about whether non-free content should be used, it remains out of the article. Please at least have some respect for that... J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. If there is a dispute over non-free content, it stays out. NFC issues are explicitly exempt from various edit warring rules, while the NFCC are quite clear that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof". You're now editing warring to keep "disputed" (and that's a generous description) non-free content in an article, while I note that you have not participated in the talk page discussion. You're playing with fire. Remember the three revert rule, and, for God's sake, remember that we have non-free content criteria that are deliberately restrictive. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way am I being uncivil? Please don't try to palm off article issues onto me being "uncivil". I told you not to patronise me, which is perfectly reasonable. Look, if you feel that the NFC should be used, please, join the discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're accusing me of being incivil because I was insensitive? If you can't see the irony, I don't think there's much I can do to show you it. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. If incivility is not discussing the issue, then you're being incivil in only talking about civility. Can we please stop playing this game? It's pointless. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You were hypersensitive as you percieved some kind of incivility, which you claimed was present because I assumed you were paronising me, which was me being hypersensitive. Like I said, can we please stop playing this game? It will get us nowhere and only serves to make situations worse... J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing what? I started this? What? How old are we? Alright, I started it, you win, I started, now I'm finishing, whatever, can we please stop playing this game and get back to the point? J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact you don't see NFC as the main issue is perhaps the crux of the disagreement. The NFC policies are very strict and important, and have to be taken seriously. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The debate is about whether the cover does meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If the use of an image does not meet the NFCC, then we cannot "replace it with same image but one that does meet the NFCC". That's like saying if a subject is non-notable, we can delete the article then replace it with the same article, "but one that does meet" the notability guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OK, it is conceivable that this image may have some use within the NFCC in the future- perhaps, for instance, an article on that game in particular. That doesn't really have anything to do with the current situation, and certainly doesn't mean that we could "replace it with same image but one that does meet the NFCC". J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So, let me make sure I understand this. You think that, if we remove an image as it does not meet the NFCC, you would then be able to upload the same image, only this time, it would meet the NFCC? J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And no, none of the NFCC apply to the logo, as it is not non-free. The NFCC do not apply to free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We replace non-free content with free content because we're a free encyclopedia, and it is our goal to be, as far as possible, entirely free. There are cases when NFC is unavoidable, and that's why we have the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been heading this way for a little while, but I really don't know what you're talking about any more. I fear you just don't "get" the NFCC, and the purpose they serve. You don't seem to be clear about what is and is not NFC, and you don't seem to understand the inherent assumption in favour of free content. I'm really struggling to follow this conversation. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, NFC sometimes has to be used. That's why we have the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

End of year awards

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	I award you this BarnSakura in recondition of your contributions to anime and manga articles during 2010 and because everyone deserves a little recondition every once in a while. ;) —Farix (t | c) 01:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

oh wow thank you! i never thought i'd win one of these. i'm very grateful.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)