User talk:AnmaFinotera: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:50, 13 April 2009

Please discuss

Please discuss the inclusion of the link on Talk:Manga: The Complete Guide. --Malkinann (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views added there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wolf's rain

Still want that text from Anime encylopedia? Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

urgh, I just typed half of it out, only to lose it when I accidently pressed a button on the wrong window, pressed back and lost the entire thing to the ether..... I'll try again tommorow! Is it for a review or fact checking? Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. I hate it when I do that :( Mostly for review, though if it has any info that isn't in the article or that isn't sourced, it would also be useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly review, although it does talk about the 4 recaps. Due to the way it's written I'll keep that bit in. The camera method wouldn't had worked, my two lenses would have made part of it hard to read as all the text is next to the spine :( I'll give it a go tommorow, i'm off to watch some anime as I've only watched one movie since Sunday! Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool and good to know (on the review and the recaps). Yeah, taking pics of books is hard to get readable text. I've tried that while out in a bookstore when I saw it on the shelf but didn't want to buy it :P I just came back from renting Bolt and The Day the Earth Stood Still (the new one; got the last copy that was in the return pile LOL)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference library query

Does Manga: The Complete Guide have information on "gay manga" - yaoi by and for gay men? --Malkinann (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has a two paragraph section on it in its yaoi section. It briefly discusses the Japanese attitude toward male homosexuality and the "gay boom" in Japan, and and overview of gara (gay manga) magazines (particularly Barazoku) and the few translated titles that deal with gay themes in a "more or less realistic manner". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Highly worth the 'further reading' then - I'm kind of hoping that I can scrape up enough material to make a stub all on its own for gay manga. Are those realistic-ish translated titles 'by and for women' or 'by and for men'? I wasn't aware that any gay manga was commercially translated... --Malkinann (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all shojo titles. According to him, no true bara has been commercially translated in English. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAs

"Not a self-nomination - sorry, but if you're a good candidate, someone else should think so first" - so this means you would oppose me if I nommed myself? =) *notes in sekret plans that Collectonian may have to be ...dealt with... for the rise of the New Wurld Order* XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, in general, yes :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

And if you refer to this section, you will see that "Context determines whether the 12-hour clock or 24-hour clock is used". The Merlin article already uses 24 hour time, and so in fact the 12-hour format leads to a difference in style. The 24-hour clock is widely used when a formal tone is required; unless Wikipedia isn't a formal source? 81.154.28.104 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour time is not formal tone, nor does the context of this article make it more appropriate. Normal time in this article should be expressed in normal time, 12 hour clock. Nor does the article "already use it" except where you tried to put it in place. Again, please stop your inappropriate changes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then why do these formal news articles, and other Wikipedia pages, all use the 24 hour clock? One is not more "normal" than the other - even my computer at this moment is using a 24 hour clock, as is practically everyone else's. Train times and tickets are universally announced using the 24 hour clock.

Secondly, the article did use 24 hour time notation, as you probably noticed, in the viewing figures table. It was there long before my edits.

And thirdly, I agree that the article should not be a TV guide. :) 81.154.28.104 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the BBC nor do other articles here. They are very rarely used in Wikipedia, especially in media articles (including featured articles). War articles, yeah, that's a normal context for 24 hour time. Being used one time in a bad quality article with so many other issues I had to CTRL+F to even find it also does not support your case. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Other BAD quality articles are not a reason to repeat. They are not as accessible to the bulk of readers, so 12 hours is best as it is more normal for the majority of readers. And yes, I spotted the times after leaving my message and removed them, as they weren't appropriate anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that the 24 hour clock is equally as normal as the 12 hour clock, and its usage is quite widespread, not just limited to "bad quality articles". The times in the user signatures, in fact, are displayed in the 24 hour clock format. --> 81.154.28.104 (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the guideline says "depends on the context." Discussion of war history or the like, a normal context. And yes, the signatures use 24 hour time because it uses UTC and its easiest on the software. Media like television series, films, etc. 12 hour is far more prevalently used, including in Britain. This is a television series article, so it is best served using 12 hour time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get your point, I'll back down here then. :P Good night. 81.154.28.104 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me.

Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've voted support. If you've any suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Have a nice day. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah!

Grrr...damn it! I was just about to source my hardcover Bat-Manga!, and then I realized....there are NO page numbers!! :O And this is a really stinkin' BIG book!! *_* Do you think I could just put the heading and source that...after all, not many have the hardcover... :D – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 22:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No page numbers at all? How odd....what are you trying to source from it? Does it have chapter names? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope none at all! "XD But yes, it does have chapter names. I am trying to source the Bat-Manhua section, exclusive to the hardcover. WAAAAY at the end of the book...so I would have to count...all the way up to the end of the book! :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that case, use the chapter names in the chapter parameter and skip the page numbers. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a solution! I know the amount of pages in the book, so since its at the end, I could subtract from that. :) – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■}

Except, of course, that published page counts aren't always accurate or done the same way you might do them :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that... :P I started subtracting and MAN, that book is HEAVY. Major headache!! ~_~" I guess i'll just skip the number thing.... *blurrrp* :P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Bleach

I was wondering if you could explain to me why you removed Chizuru Honshō from the list of characters in Bleach. You say her role is small, but compared to other minor characters (like Mizuiro Kojima who DOES have his own article) she seems to have had at least some impact on the story (even though it was only in the anime filler). Is there some guideline I have overlooked maybe? Arnizipal (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mizuiro needs to have his own section (not article) either. Seems pretty minor. Character lists primarily should have protagonists, antagonists, and major supporting characters. The Bleach list has been greatly cleaned up in the last week, but it is still a work in progress, so there are still plenty of flaws in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is it really needed to delete all of those sections of side characters? I came looking for info on Chizuru after last week's episode because I wanted to know when or where she became spiritually aware, but I realised all of her information was gone. If I can't find that information here, where am I supposed to look? I know it's impossible to have a full list of all characters that ever appeared in a long series like Bleach, but could the information on spiritually aware side characters stay at least? Those characters usually have a larger role besides being comic relief or being saved by the heroes. Take Don Kanonji for example. He was one of the main characters for about half a dozen episodes, but his section has been deleted as well. Arnizipal (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place for a summary view of the series and not overly detailed coverage of minor characters. If you are looking for such detailed information on minor characters, you would be best served at a fansite or the Bleach wikia, which is the place where such information is generally more appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Could you point me to some sort of guildine or document on how to decide what is considered addworthy and what isn't? It would be a great help for future reference when I want to add something new. Thanks. Arnizipal (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS-AM, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT are good starting points. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Sorry about all the questions. I recently returned to wikipedia afer a couple of years absence and it seems a lot has changed around here in the mean time. A lot of cleanup is going on and it pains me to see articles or sections I've worked on being abridged, moved into lists or cut altogether. I'll read up on those links you provided and keep them in mind before adding new stuff. Arnizipal (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea for a good organization of the list? Most Visoreds (except Shinji and Hiyori)are very minor characters also (although they could have a bigger role in the future)Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would be the unpopular opinion, but I think the list needs to be organized in the more standard way of protagonist, antagonist, and supporting characters, all minor characters dropped, and the rest cleaned up to one paragraph summaries (except the central characters who might need two); then we can look at the sizes and see if some of the splintered lists can (finally) be merged back in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I try it is very hard. Still, do you think hollows should antagonists? There some like Nel that are good.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be on a case by case basis...some are antagonists, some supporting, many don't need mentioning at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball

Explain to me how it is not clear to you that RottenTomatoes means nothing for Dragonball but it does for all the other films in hollywood, and that the movie does not generally have negative reviews?

Osh33m (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't mean anything for "all the other films in Hollywood" either. An RT score is beyond useless to anyone except those who are already heavy users of the RT site. Real reviews are what goes in the reception section, not some random, arbitrary "freshness" rating. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting legitimate comments on Talk:Shugo Chara!

Actualy, I didn't delete the comment. I moved a closed discussion to ShugoChara Archive1. --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks like I accidently deleted it, then didn't move it to the Archives. (I'm almost sure that I did move it...hmmm) I'll make sure to correctly relocate it next time. --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did move it, according to the History of Talk:Shugo Chara!/Archive 1 --<The Integer Conundrum> (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, make sure you note in the edit summary that you are archiving something (it would also behoove you to start using them all together). However, in this case, archiving that discussion was completely unnecessary. It isn't old, not was it outdated. It has now been undone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question

you reverted my nomination for deletion i am new to twinkle but can u tell me why i it was considered worngRockiesfan19 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not nominate an AfD discussion for MfD. It is disruptive and extremely inappropriate to try to have a deletion discussion deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i was unaware that i was deleting the thread. I thought i was nominating it for deletion my apologiesRockiesfan19 (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not use tools like this unless you know what you are doing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will unlink twinkle till i know what i am doing. Sorry for incident Rockiesfan19 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

curious

I noticed your post at WP:V. I'm not sure I understand why it's unfortunate that I made a valid point? — Ched : ? 06:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is sad state of affairs that an editor trying to adhere to WP:V must instead back down and allow unsourced and possibly incorrect content to avoid conflict. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh .. OK. I wasn't sure how to take that. You bring up a very key element here too. Not so much the unsourced part, but rather the incorrect content issue. Perhaps even more to the point would be the contested part. Are you familiar with the show? I'll admit that I'm not, I simply saw a reference (via a website) that supported the episode numbering, and supplied it to the contributors of the article. I was actually hoping to resolve the conflict there - but to my dismay, my efforts failed. If there is reason to believe that the show was indeed produced under a different numbering scheme, or that the UK air dates are not accurate, then that opens a completely different scenario. It may well be worth investigating. Personally though, as I read through the article talk page, it appears to me to be more of an agreement among multiple regular editors that the numbering scheme is accurate, but that Thor was/is saying "prove it", without any real substance to doubt the consensus. It appears to me that great pains were taken in early discussions to AGF and explain the reasoning; but, it does seem that patience has worn a little thin in recent posts. Prima facie evidence would indicate, to me at least, that Thor's demanding of a reference is little more than an attempt to prove a point, and I think that a few of the other editors are seeing it in that light as well. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that a few may even consider it to be getting downright disruptive. I don't know Collectonian, you make some very good points indeed. I think I'll watch the remainder of this from the sidelines though - I can't envision this moving in a positive direction any time soon. Oh well, I appreciate your time, and thanks for clearing up the "unfortunate" thing. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't a snide remark about me personally. I hope you have a wonderful weekend, and a great Easter (if you celebrate that as a holiday - if not then I hope it's just a great another day of the year). ;) — Ched : ? 08:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with it myself beyond the name and commercials, though I am heavily into editing TV articles and I know that the bulk of "prod codes" in articles tend to be just copied from TV.com without sourcing, and then when checked against an official source (where available) tend to be wrong. One of my featured lists had those codes, and during its FL they were removed as unsourced, which is correct and could be where Thor is trying to go. If the article is aimed at a higher class like GA or FA, it would fail without sourcing of that. It would be nice if one of the editors had the DVDs, as companies do often put the prod codes in the materials with that, or if there is some published episode guide? Alas, I suspect you are right that it will not move in a positive direction, and that Thor's post at WP:V will probably be considered both disruptive and enflaming. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young lady, your kindness and consideration reminds me that there is more to life than facts and figures - and for that, I thank you! Later this week I'll make a concerted effort to find some supporting references to help resolve the questions brought up by Thor. I can't always promise to agree with you, but it's obvious to me that you are a good person, and I look forward to working with you in the future. ;) ... All my best — Ched : ? 12:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra issues

Someone keeps "rewriting" the Cobra article. Which I guess in this persons view means putting a completely unsourced character and publication history section and a two sentence long heading. Maybe you could help out. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked his contribs and left a note on his talk page. Hopefully it will help him understand why his edits were not useful. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Happy Easter! – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) It seems that guy is now just totally ignoring the messages on his talk page. I've warned him for 3RR and filed a protection request. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Signpost interview

Would you be at all interested in undertaking an interview for the Wikipedia Signpost about WikiProject Films? As you have recently become a co-ordinator it seems you are the ideal subject for such a feature. If you are interested please answer my draft questions at User:Garden/int. Thanks in advance, Collectonian! GARDEN 18:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sure! I'll take a look tonight and start working on answering then :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make us proud! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U-Drop Inn

Hi, I am reviewing your article U-Drop Inn for GA and have left some comments at Talk:U-Drop Inn/GA1. You have chosen to write about a gem of a building and once you add the architectural details, it will be a fine article. Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I gave them a quick scan and will work on addressing those issues this evening when I am back home where the source materials are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Thanks for welcoming me. Could you put a box on my user page too? I'd like to fill it in a bit. The Wurdulak (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bud in. Could you direct me to help making a standard user page? The Wurdulak (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User Page Design Center is a great starting place. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a good help page. Is there nothing simpler? Like a simple template I could just use? Thanks. The Wurdulak (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

curious on minor characters

Why do you oppose mentioning minor characters who appear in a few episodes of a show in even the character list? or as a redirect. What harm exactly do you think it does? Don;t you think it would be a usable compromise. (Im thniking of [1] DGG (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Minor characters who only appear in a few episodes are not notable even within the fictional series, much less without. In preparing character lists for featured list status, that is one of the first thing that always goes, minor characters, per WP:WAF, WP:MOSTV's few guidelines, WP:PLOT, and WP:STAND. No, I don't think it is a usable compromise to put a minor character in a list that it would only later be removed from (and only leads to certain people claiming the "deletionists sneakily" removed it later and thereby went against consensus). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack.

Come on CC, I think you're being just a wee~ bit overbearing about your opinions being referred to as "unpopular". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 197: / Line 197: @@
 Why do you oppose mentioning minor characters who appear in a few episodes of a show in even the character list?  or as a redirect. What harm exactly do you think it does? Don;t you think it would be a usable compromise. (Im thniking of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Hendrix] '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 :This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Minor characters who only appear in a few episodes are not notable even within the fictional series, much less without. In preparing character lists for featured list status, that is one of the first thing that always goes, minor characters, per [[WP:WAF]], [[WP:MOSTV]]'s few guidelines, [[WP:PLOT]], and [[WP:STAND]]. No, I don't think it is a usable compromise to put a minor character in a list that it would only later be removed from (and only leads to certain people claiming the "deletionists sneakily" removed it later and thereby went against consensus). -- [[User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
+== That wasn't a personal attack. ==
+Come on CC, I think you're being just a wee~ bit overbearing about your opinions being referred to as "unpopular". - [[User:Norse Am Legend|Norse Am Legend]] ([[User talk:Norse Am Legend|talk]]) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)