Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 8 July 2008

This is AnmaFinotera's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 days

This is AnmaFinotera's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 days

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

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

• Explain the assessment you made on this TV or film article
• Why did you give X article Y tag(s)?
• Why did you change the reflist tag in an article to the references one, or visa versa?
• What do you mean you're "wikibonked"?

Tokyo Mew Mew

I'll begin reviewing it today. (I've been hosting a pair of friends from East Timor for the past few weeks, but we took them to the airport yesterday.) Sorry for the delay! – Scartol • Tok 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I hope they had a great visit :) -- ] (] · ]) 17:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The copy editing has been completed. :) There are some issues still outstanding (refer to the talk page), but we could apply for GA class soon. G.A.S 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Diff; not quite unnecessary: Refer to Misplaced Pages:How_to_fix_bunched-up_edit_links for the symptoms and the fix; the only differences is that in this case, it was due to the "infoboxes" on the right, not images. As for the "|index=/Archive Index" change, that got in inadvertently:). G.A.S 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit links aren't bunched up, and that isn't needed for a talk page. -- ] (] · ]) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

At that time there were no TOC and the edit link for the first section went missing (on top of the text, or behind the infobox), which makes it quite inconvenient if you need to edit that section/look at the code. G.A.S 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the ToC disappeared because you manually archived some stuff :-P -- ] (] · ]) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I put those discussions back? ;) G.A.S 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, with the copy edit comments it has enough for a TOC and should all be good now, right? -- ] (] · ]) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention enough work to keep us busy for a while. I am done for now, in case you would like to continue without edit conflicts. Would you like to attempt to move the one section from the plot to the characters section? The move seems to make sense, and would remove some redundancy. The other option is, as he said, to remove the characters section, but that would be odd given the manual of style and the other featured anime and manga articles. G.A.S 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, true true. I'll work on that awhile, as it is helping me keep my mind off things. -- ] (] · ]) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Have you decided what we shall do with the section within plot re characters and the characters section? (Bullets 3 and 7) G.A.S 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not yet. Not sure how to fix the characters without using bullets...and there just aren't enough FAs to look at for guidance. I may try checking some FA TV articles, see what they use. -- ] (] · ]) 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can start by removing the section in "plot", per suggestion. Then we should attempt to work that detail into the characters section. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Assessment lists that they have 29 FA's. Here is a quick summary of the applicable ones:

• Animaniacs - "Characters" paragraph section
• Arrested Development (TV series) - "Characters" paragraph section - seems comprehensive
• The Quatermass Experiment - "Cast and Characters" paragraph section
• Meerkat Manor - "The Meerkats" paragraph section
• Lost (TV series) - "Cast and Characters" paragraph section
• Degrassi: The Next Generation - Only cast section
• Carnivàle - Only cast section
• Cheers - Only cast section
• The Wire (TV series) - Only cast section
• The West Wing - Only cast section
• Firefly (TV series) - Bulleted section with medium descriptions
• Quatermass II - Only cast section
• Aquaman (TV program) - Bulleted section with short descriptions
• Cold Feet - Bulleted section with long descriptions
• Sesame Street - subsections for characters
• Press Gang - subsections for characters
• Yes Minister - subsections for characters
• Only Fools and Horses - subsections for characters

Time after time, those with proper paragraphs display better, so this is a given. We could attempt to add "out of universe" detail to the section, but I am unsure whether it will help. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Assessment's Featured articles may also give advice. G.A.S 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The live action ones aren't good examples, unfortunately, as they focus on the cast, which isn't something we go into huge detail about. MM I wrote. :P It has no overall plot section as its a non-fiction work, so the Meerkats paragraph is sort of a combo section. I'll keep thinking...-- ] (] · ]) 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, nor do we have any information about the casting/character design. MM, I know, but couldn't leave it out, could I?;) You would have seen by now that I mentioned this on the MOS talk page; maybe they have some ideas. Regards, G.A.S 17:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we can always nominate the article for GA, and see what input they provide... G.A.S 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I want to go straight for FA, not GA, so will see if I can figure something out this weekend. Been a long week :) -- ] (] · ]) 21:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. But was it not according to Scartol near/at GA level? Anyway, FAC should provide valuable input. G.A.S 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Still working on the character thing. Went into contract on a house on Friday, so had inspections Monday. Also, I probably won't be able to merge Ichigo to the character list until August as all of my manga is now packed :P -- ] (] · ]) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! In any case, there is no time limit, and more than enough to keep us busy until then. G.A.S 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a change to try the page without a character section...what do you think? -- ] (] · ]) 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me;). If this makes FA we should update the MoS accordingly. At most we may need to expand on the characters in the plot section, but I think that will be unnecessary. G.A.S 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the MoS needs updating. If this were a longer series, it could support a full character section, I think. With it being so short, most of what can be said is already in the plot. The other alternative, though, would be to go with a bullet method, which I'll also test later, that takes a summary from the list of. -- ] (] · ]) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Scartol on this one: A bullet list is a no go. If a better description is really needed we should be able to work it into the plot section. I can also see his point (and WP:NOVEL's) of avoiding a character section altogether. Refer to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Characters in "NovelTitle" for what I mean by updating the MOS: We need not prohibit it, just say that it an acceptable option.) There are some examples I can quickly point at: Starship Troopers, The Lord of the Rings, To Kill a Mockingbird: Neither seems incomplete without an character section. Regards, G.A.S 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. So can you think of anything that was in the character section that might be good to incorporate int the plot section? If there is no character section I think we can expand the plot a little if needed. -- ] (] · ]) 05:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the information you removed, none of it seems that important and the more important parts are already fully covered in the plot section. The only items that were removed are: the minor character list (Not important), some background information on the aliens (Trivial at best—and it differs as opposed to MMP), and the part about them getting their name (Trivial). What should be added to the plot section? I cannot think of anything specific that is missing. G.A.S 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty...so what do you think, GA or be bold and go straight for FA? :P -- ] (] · ]) 06:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Wikiproject had a proper A class review, I would have taken it there instead of GA review, but alas, it does not (yet). As such I would have taken it to GA first, even if it is just a formality; then again, being bold is your style:) G.A.S 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, true true. Why stop now? :-P -- ] (] · ]) 06:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want/need me as co-nominator? Given that you did most of the work;) G.A.S 11:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) I was gonna ask since I didn't want to just add you first :P -- ] (] · ]) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

When do you plan to make the merger? I think there is consensus, in fact, none have opposed to the idea here. It appears someone even suggested that we merge Dragonball (film) also. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, from the reaction at Bleach on the idea of merging the film, that merging the DB film will be a no go. It should be a separate discussion though after the rest of the merging is done. -- ] (] · ]) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The investigation into reliable sources at FAC

Hi, the last time we had discussion, it was about the reliability of sources. This was an issue in particular to pop culture subjects that included games and anime. One particular problem is with proving the reliability of websites. Thankfully, Ealdgyth the resident source checker at FACs has posted her thoughts at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, which is a presentation of WP:RS and WP:V in clearer and common terms. The information in the dispatch can help the relevant Wikiprojects to find and defend their sources, as well as eliminating any possible arguments from those enamoured with unreliable sites (if they really wish to prove those sites are reliable, at least now there are suggestions or hints to tell them what to look for). I hope this is of help. Jappalang (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Hello, I sometimes read WP:EAR, so I was reading over some recent changes to liaison psychiatry. It looks like when you posted {{uw-3rr}} to Justinmarley's talk page yesterday, you yourself were on your fifth revert in 24 hours. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hustler (film)

In the absence of a copywriter to review the article, is the article as it now stands eligible in your estimation for listing as GA? Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be a pest, but i'd like to move this nom forward. If the improvements to the article since your comments are sufficient I'd appreciate if you'd promote it. If not, specific feedback as to the current issues would be greatly appreciated. Otto4711 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It still needs to be copyeditor. One has said he would review the article. I'll give him a poke. Prose is a GA criteria, so I can not, in good conscious, promote it without a CE.-- ] (] · ]) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Zerdin

Hi. I recommend AfD. There's just about there to mean it shouldn't be speedied. --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

John D. Groendyke

I added some referenced to John D. Groendyke and removed the speedy tag. By the way, the article survived AfD a while ago. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John D. Groendyke. --Eastmain (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Twas a very short AfD, but that's fine to. Already saw the CSD removal. Just came by while clearing the copyvio backlog. :) -- ] (] · ]) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you think it would be reasonable to use the DiC promotional video itself as a reference, without linking to a website that violates its copyright? Or would that run into verifiability issues? It doesn't seem like it should, since the thing is pretty easy to find if one wants to, but I'm not sure. --Masamage ♫ 19:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Was the video included in any of the DVD releases (can't remember at the moment)? -- ] (] · ]) 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty embarrassing, so I'd expect not; I don't personally own any of the DVD sets to check, though. Actually, I'm not sure where the denizens of the internet found it. I guess we could ask around. --Masamage ♫ 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Somme American Cemetery and Memorial

Hi, I removed your speedy deletion template from this article. (I stubbed it out first, then reverted to the version before your template). It turns out that all the text is originally from the American Battlefield Monument Commission, a federal agency, and is therefore public domain. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. :) -- ] (] · ]) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Darkspots (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pteridomania

Please refer me to specific guidelines indicating the amount of quoted material that is appropriate. For you to delete all the quoted material seems to be more in the spirit of bullying than helpfulness. Thanks. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did refer you to the specific guidelines in my edit summary, twice. WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYRIGHT. WP:NONFREE is also helpful (and clear):

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."

Half an article of quotes, with most of the rest also attributed to the same source is a very clear case of "Extensive quotation. It has nothing to do with bullying. Misplaced Pages's copyright policies are the most strongly enforced ones out there, and violations must be dealt with quickly by law. If you feel I am incorrect in considering the amount of quotes extensive, feel free to also ask on the NONFREE talk page. -- ] (] · ]) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, "brief quotation" and "extensive quotation" are not specific. Have you decided that half of an article being quotes is excessive or is this a guideline? Is one third excessive? How about one quarter? I am inferring that you think no amount of block quotation is appropriate because you did, in fact, remove all of it. House of Scandal (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the amount of quotation is less than half but let's not lower ourselves to counting individual words. I am receptive to the idea of cutting each of the blockquotes down somewhat but maintain that removing all of them was needlessly heavyhanded. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Half an article seems like a pretty common sense interpretation of excessive. Going by character count, it was 52.6% of the article content, if you want to be picky about it, and that includes the categories and headers. I removed all of the quotes because they were all extremely long, and were not being used appropriately. Direct quotes should be used sparingly, not used in such huge chunks. I also removed them all because coupled with the paraphrased portions also attributed to the same source, the article was nearly eligible for CSD as blatant copyright infringement. See also Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems which includes a section on appropriate use of quotes, which this, again, is not. You may think I think no amount is appropriate, but obviously that is false as I use them in my own articles, including an FA, a GA, and a current FAC. -- ] (] · ]) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to your concerns I've shortened the quotes considerably. While the current length might be more than you would prefer, I think copyright infringement is no longer a concern. Given the amount of material on Misplaced Pages screaming for improvement (hit your random article button a few times and see what you find), I am urging you to step away from this matter rather than fixating on our difference in opinion. I do appreciate your concern for the guidelines and for Misplaced Pages in general. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and as copyright violations are never anything I will just step aside on when they continue, I have reported the page to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems for administrative review. And, BTW, I got to the article, a CorenBot report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations as I stepped in to clear up the 12 day backlog. -- ] (] · ]) 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars, especially when you're involved. Thanks. APK 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to The Irish Descendents - Vandalism

Your removal of significant portions of this article under the auspices of COPYVIO (when they clearly are not) are considered vandalism. Please refrain from removing such items again, or you will be reported. If the text was removed in error, please accept my apologies. Good luck in your future edits on Misplaced Pages, and thanks for trying to improve this source of information. BMW(drive) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)