| Revision as of 18:27, 2 September 2009 view sourceAnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)107,494 editsm Reverted 1 edit by DBZfan29 identified as vandalism to last revision by Collectonian. using TW← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:05, 18 December 2024 view source Z1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,584 edits Undid revision 1263797244 by Z1720 (talk) Not neededTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| <!-- Do not edit these lines -->{{User:Collectonian/talkheader}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 21 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(3d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Collectonian/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }}<!-- Comments go below here! --> | |||
| == Awesome magazine! == | |||
| Check this magazine out, its called '']''. I just figured out about it, its very little known, but...just read the article. I recently revamped it and I think its a pretty good article. I just recently found an issue of it at a collector's bookstore, and I found a March 1926 issue of the magazine in very neat condition, so I decided to buy it. I researched it expecting it to be some zippity do-dah magazine, "that was founded by some company on some date and ceased publication in some year because it sucked" kind of magazine. :P No! This magazine is very interesting. You should check it out. :) – ] <sup><small>■]<small>■</small></sup> 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Cool...quite a few magazines from those times are rather interesting - they had actual articles and content, not just ads and fashion :) -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey, you're right. They do have more content now that I think about it. :) And when they did have ads, they actually made you want to buy the product. :P Do you like the article, its probobly one of the best I've written. :) – ] <sup><small>■]<small>■</small></sup> 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks great and way better than many magazine articles out there, even if it is brief :) -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == It's that time again == | |||
| Almost exactly one year after my first edit on the page, 48 weeks and 146 edits(!) after starting to work on the page properly, I think ] is finally in a position where it can be nominated for ] :p I did some copyediting and stuff, but it needs another look as I changed a bunch of refs to use something more official after going archive hunting. If all is well I'll nominate it, if not I'll give it some more tweaks. ] (]) 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Awesome! Taking a quick look, the only major issue I noticed is that "Differences in anime adaption" is unsourced. :P -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is plot, which doesn't need sourcing? ?] (]) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its comparing the plots between two medium, so yep, it needs sourcing. Only straight plot summary does not need an explicit source. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's literally only what happens in the specials. Could I rename it? I purposely avoided comparing the two. Although, the opening line might comprimise that :p] (]) 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hmm...if its just the summary of the specials, it probably should be removed all together, unless they are supposed to be the conclusion of the series. In which case, yes, it should be renamed :-P -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh wait, after actually ''looking'' at it (:p) you are right. Presumably I could do a few cite episodes without timecodes as it involves the entirety of two eps and two specials. ] (]) 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If its comparative, the sources need to be non-primary sources. If it is just a summary of the OVA, then it does not need sources, the section name just needs fixing to reflect what it really is. :P -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Any suggestions? It's not comparative, it just says "after this event, ", without saying anything has changed. ] (]) 19:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If the events don't change anything with the main story and isn't really a conclusion, I'd just drop the section. The ep summaries of the OVA should be in the episode list, so unless its relevant, no need to repeat there. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'll think about it, the events go from being mostly different to completely different between the two versions, until you get to the spring special and ova. Theres room for expanding it if a suitable scope is found, dropping it would make it "less complete", although the manga summary is very brief to what it could be as I avoided the later details that aren't shared between the two, apart from the finale.] (]) 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Tag and assess drive == | |||
| All of the individual issues have now been organized in a ], please weigh in if you can. --Happy editing! ] (] • ]) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Done (noting for myself as much as anything :P) -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible Bambifan? == | |||
| I hate to bring this up, but there is a strange new account I reported at the admin noticeboard...and at least one other user thinks it's Bambifan101. Doesn't look like his MO, but I've seen this single-minded editing before on the kid's TV show "Arthur" without the slightest acknowledgement of other users over copyvio issues. The account is ]. Can you run a CU and see what turns up? Thanks much. --] (]) 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like the real parent was found before I could answer :) But yeah, didn't seem like him. The only time he's done copyvio (so far) has been when he was vandalizing anime/manga articles to get my attention. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Ah, but it would appear the real culprit was found as a sock of the equally bizarre ]. Thanks for checking into that for me and we'll chat soon. --] (]) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Is it just me, or are there are a lot of weird socks these days? :P -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User page rendering == | |||
| Your user page and talk page aren't rendering properly for me with either Firefox or Safari. The stars at the top are overprinting the unified login note making it unreadable and they are also on top of your edit instructions box. I haven't had this problem on any other user with similar pages. ] (]) 06:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Odd. I do not seem to have the same problem (Firefox 3.0, 3.5, IE7). ]] 06:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found it. It's caused by the "Beta" interface changes. Even in standard monobook, the stars overprint if the window is too narrow, so I suspect this might not get fixed. Nevertheless, I've reported it to the beta development team. ] (]) 08:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, I noticed that awhile back when looking at it on narrower screens. Just can't decide how I want to fix it - make them smaller or go to two rows or both. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yep, absolute positioning acts differently between Monobook and Vector (it's much better now, though; when Vector was first released, they were miles apart). Have you considered playing around with {{tl|top icon}} for them? Icons using that template (or the <code>topicon</code> class) should act pretty much the same between Monobook and Vector. <span style=white-space:nowrap>「]]」<sup>] · ]</sup></span> 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hadn't heard of that one...just gave it a try, but it stacked all the icons on top of each other? Maybe missing something in how to use it? -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You've probably already noticed, but I went ahead and updated with {{tlf|top icon}} and company for you (you need to use {{para|icon_nr}} (or its alias {{para|number}}) to prevent stacking). I ddidn't feel like playing around with offsets a whole bunch, so I dropped the custom image sizes, but I can fool around with the DYKs if you want them smaller (they are a bit ugly at 15px, aren't they?). <span style=white-space:nowrap>「]]」<sup>] · ]</sup></span> 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I noticed and appreciate it :) Its fine with the DYKs...not gonna worry too much about it. On the whole, they are much more compact :D -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No problem, now I've just gotta create a {{tl|DYK user topicon}} so I can make about half of those even more compact for you... =) (and how the heck did you get an edit conflict when you were editing a different section? o_O ) <span style=white-space:nowrap>「]]」<sup>] · ]</sup></span> 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No idea...it was weird and I didn't realize it did it until I'd already closed so had to rewrite :P -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Note == | |||
| I just wanted to let you know that when you revert an edit, like the one you did to ], you should check to see if what the edit you are reverting to has any typos/incorrect spellings. I had to fix the word "Disappearing", since it was spelled "Dissapearing" in the edit that you reverted to. I know you may not have meant to leave it like this and never thought to check, but I just felt that I should let you know so in further edits you will check to see if there are any typos, even if you do that most of the time and just forgot to do it just this one time. Thank you. ] (]) 10:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You did not do a typo fixed, you completely changed the sentence. So next time, just fix the typo, and don't use an edit summary to add a silly chastisement when your initial edit was completely different and not a spelling correction. Thanks. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == re: Official Bleach Page == | |||
| It might be, I'll stop reverting it, but the Wiki-link checker keeps picking it up as a redirect as well, sorry. --] (]) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The wikilink checker is not 100% accurate, you should always check it yourself first. Sometimes it calls something a redirect when it really is not. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Family Guy == | |||
| Do you have a chance to look at ]? I have been working really hard at doing a general clean to it. It still needs some expansion on casting and positive reception, but any suggestions you would have or articles/sources you would recommend would be really helpful. Thanks! ]] ] 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, I'll try to take at a look at it by the weekend at the latest. :) -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! I am kind of taking a step back from it for a while, so no rush. ]] ] 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing I'd say it really needs work on is just general, overall structure. Its a little over segmented and the "Production issues" seems like something that should just be part of production and restructured a bit. A bit of tweaking towards ] would also be good, dropping that DVD table, and fixing some reference formats (oh, and drop the wikia spam in EL). Other than that, as you noted, the "Characters" section needs a few more sources, and much more reception would be good (for such a large series, I'd think there would be much more available). Google News, of course, would be good to go through if you haven't already. Its getting about 25k hits there. Also Google books, which lists several books discussing the series, including ]'s autobio, and several books on prime time TV. Do you have access to a journal database through a local school or university? If so, you'll probably find more articles there. With Family Guy, finding sources is likely something that will take a long term effort due to the sheer amount of material to go through. If you have help with the article, dividing up the work would be a good idea :-) -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you a lot. I am already going through and formatting the references and right now I am trying to go through Reuters archives for good articles. I will have access to a library when I get back to school so that won't be a problem. Do you have any suggestions on how the Production section(s) should flow? It is difficult to include the usual creation stuff and then include the issues too and have it all flow nicely. ]] ] 00:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd probably merge in production issues into production by moving Cancellation and renewal up, merging the writer's strike section into the writing section, and moving Lawsuits down to Reception since it really isn't production related. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == GT Episode List == | |||
| You've got your proof, where should I put the reference? It's mistakenly written as "Black Star" saga on DVD, but official trailer notes it as "Black Star Dragon Ball." ] (]) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I corrected my own revert of your first edit. The Season 1 DVD box set says "Black Star" which is the more reliable source than the trailer (which may have been made before the set was pressed and the final title decided). Do you have the box set? Do the materials within the box set use the longer name? -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Might sound like a fool saying this, but sadly I don't. I sold it to get ready for the long-awaited "Dragon Boxes." I'll look for it now, though. ] (]) 03:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I can't find anything, but, when you think about it, "Black Star" doesn't really make sense. "Black Star Dragon Ball" originated from the Japanese "Ultimate Dragon Ball" arc. I know my own fan knowledge won't do us any good, I just wanted to point that out. Another thing, don't use the GT site as a reference for any name changes because it hasn't been edited and still says "lost episodes." Oh, and, even though FUNi doesn't mention it but the second season contains the remainder of the Baby arc as well (ep. 35-40). ] (]) 03:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We have to go by what the box sets say, which does not mention the remaining of the Baby Saga (though from the original divisions that is what it appears to have). "Black Star" makes as much sense to me as most of the saga names :P -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well, you aren't a DB fan so I guess it would make sense to you :p. Also, I'm pretty sure they just forgot the rest of the Baby saga. How do you think that would have looked - "Contains the remainder of the Baby saga and Super 17 and Shadow Dragon sagas." They could've just said "contains the remainder of the GT series." The set also included the GT TV special, so adding Baby saga would have probably been impossible! ] (]) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Without a reliable source saying otherwise, we can only presume they moved those episodes until the Super 17 saga. Noting that on the DVD set would not have been impossible, so it seems like a deliberate move on their part. They could have also just kept the remaining episodes with the first set, but they chose not to. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Even with the Z sets, they kept the original saga names, so you can presume that it was just another mistake. They only dropped the saga names for the new DB sets. Also, the set read "Contains the Super 17 and Shadow Dragon sagas and the GT movie A Hero's Legacy" so it would have been confusing to add the Baby saga, too. ] (]) 03:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm confused. But I agree, you need a reliable source. (And thanks for taking the time to explain it this time.)]|<small>]]</small> 03:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, you can not presume they made a mistake. They specifically note which sagas are in which season set. Again, without a reliable source, do not change this. And I'm really disappointed in you for switching to your IP to make an edit you knew would not be appreciated. You do realized that is ] and could get you permanently blocked, right? -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Sorry, stupid me forgot to log in again. Again, FUNi is known to mess-up so we can presume they did. The season sets themselves were a mistake! Anyway, even without a source, if we get enough people (two or three more) to agree with me can we then make the change? Also, I started a discussion towards merging the ] and ] pages at the SSJ page. Could you drop by and comment? I feel you have a bit more authority and can draw others into the discussion! ] (]) 16:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Again, no, we can not presume anything. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you that Funimation may have made a mistake. They own the license, they can do with it what they want with their releases, and we can only go by that information. They determine the official English titles and organization of the series, not fans, not personal opinion. Unless and until actual reliable sources (not fan opinion) state otherwise, we can only go by what Funimation's sets say. Even if a reliable source does say Funimation split the saga, that would only be worthy of a footnote and not a valid reason to change the list organization. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Since the TfD is now over, I am going to follow up on renaming ] to ]. The template would basically retaining its existing functionality, minus the word "list", and would now following the normal redirect template naming convention. I would then rename the 2 other templates that follow the unusually naming pattern. If you don't object, I will just go ahead and ]ly do it. If you do object, I will list them on ]. | |||
| Let me know which you prefer, ] (]) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I do object. The TfD did NOT close with - rename existing to the new name, it closed as redirect yours to the current. If you feel it should be renamed, start a renaming discussion and get actual consensus to support your views. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I will do that, but there is no need to be an ass about it. I really don't see what the big deal is about bringing a name inline with standard practice. Geez. --] (]) 16:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one is being an ass about anything. The TfD did NOT close with supporting of the renaming. I'm asking you to therefore follow proper procedures and actually get consensus to rename a template that has not had any objections to its name for almost two years. I don't see why you find it such a big deal if you believe it shouldn't be a problem. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Perhaps I was a bit over the top, but your comment seemed condescending as I clearly know how the RfD ended ... and I don't think making the name change as part of the discussion was really even a possibility. "Proper procedure" is to be BOLD and not start a pointless discussion when an issue can be resolved without one. I came here to try and resolve the situation by asking your "permission" to move it, since I was unclear about whether you would insist on a move discussion or not. Personally, I don't see why you are objecting. The old names will still work and the new names are both more clear & follow normal naming patterns. Do you actually have an objection other than the age of the templates? --] (]) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I prefer the current names which actually reflect their purpose and current usage. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Gundam ZZ list == | |||
| 1) The lead wasn't changed by my edit (with the exception of some kanji here and there and a note about the premiere date). | |||
| 2) The titles are *SUPPOSED* to be literal translations; it has nothing to do with OR. | |||
| 3) I typed this list in a long time ago and TheFarix missed the old page when he created the list. | |||
| ] (]) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The lead was changed to follow a dated method and the inappropriate addition of the kanji. The kanji goes in the main article, not the episode list lead. The title notes were unnecessary nor can any one translation system confirm a translation. Your title changes are also inappropriate and should be discussed on the talk page. The version I reverted to a more appropriate translations and more accurate. The title is clearly ''ZZ'' and not ''Double Zeta'', and trying to enforce an incorrect name does not aid your argument. As for the merging issues with your version and the current, take it to the talk page, but do not continue edit warring and inappropriately trying to do a copy/paste move. Merging of anything from your list should be done carefully and with discussion. Your having created your list a long time ago is completely irrelevant to the issue. Its being "older" does not automatically trump the newer, more appropriately named, formatted, and written list. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it really more accurate? I don't think so, and I have five years of college Japanese and several months of living in Japan to back that up. I didn't change any titles, I followed the project guidelines to use *literal translations* when I wrote the original article. There aren't any official English titles. Also, the Japanese name *IS* "Gandamu Daburu Zeta". It's right there in the title cards on-screen! Why should I be in trouble for copying/pasting when that's essentially what happened to the old article? There were legitimate references and episode descriptions that got obliterated as well and I was merely trying to restore those. ] (]) 00:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Partially copied from my talk page:'' Translation of Japanese is not an exact science, so to say that your translations are literal is misleading. Three editors can look at the same sentence written in Kanji and come up with three different translations. However, Bandai uses ''Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ'' as the official English title of the series, as seen on their website. I'll leave the episode translations to {{user|Nihonjoe}} and {{user|Doceirias}} to haggle over. --''']''' (]) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible Bamibfan socks == | |||
| Could you look at ]? The user look pretty suspicious to me and I have no idea why they have come to my talk. ]] ] 01:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, both of them are socks. Tagging the newer one and reporting for blocking. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you! ]] ] 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And now he's off stealing articles I wrote (GA ones at that) and trying to put them on the Russian Misplaced Pages as his own "good works". *sigh* Figures the little brat can't do any real good editing so he takes credit other people's efforts. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What I can't fathom is why there hasn't been any real action against this scourge. He has easily become the worst vandal on this site, bar none. ] (]) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| BTW: I just went over to the original Bambifan101 talk page. That account was blocked one year ago today. You'd think a solid year of getting booted off this site would have sunk in. No dealing with morons, I guess. ] (]) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:05, 18 December 2024
Redirect to: